list_network_policies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'List all' clearly indicates a read-only operation and the namespace scope, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, permissions, or the effect of cluster_alias. The description is not misleading but is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the output schema exists, but the description fails to explain the cluster_alias parameter and any multi-cluster implications. The overall context is adequate but has clear gaps related to parameter usage and potential edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the namespace parameter via 'in a namespace' and completely ignores cluster_alias, leaving its purpose and behavior unexplained. The schema itself provides only defaults, so the agent gets little guidance on parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (NetworkPolicies) with a specific scope (in a namespace). It is distinct from sibling tools as no other tool handles NetworkPolicies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when one needs to list NetworkPolicies, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. It lacks any context for the cluster_alias parameter or when to choose this over other list tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.